Skip to main content

Week 4 - Han and Yiu

Both papers this week discuss the existence of and the ability to manipulate memory localization in the brain. The 2009 Han et al article seeks to find out if killing the neurons that are activated during a given fear memory erase the memory. It was discovered that when a specific set of neurons in the Lateral Amygdala (LA) that have higher CREB concentrations were killed, the corresponding auditory fear memory was suppressed. Yiu et al’s 2014 article builds off of Han’s research to understand why this happens and to see if this stays true in neurons of different areas of the brain. This team confirms Han’s findings and reveals that the strength of the connection between a neuron and a memory is not necessarily dependent on CREB levels but is dependent on the neuron’s prior excitability. I agree that Han’s study was too minimal and I was left feeling unsatisfied with many questions as to how and why CREB levels affect memory in this way. Yiu not only tackled this question but also tested more areas in the amygdala to confirm this only occurs in the LA and controlled for anxiety levels through the OFT and EPT. 

It interests me how memory is discussed here as such a physical set of connections, although I suppose this is the nature of neuroscience. In most of the research I have read, memory is more of an abstract concept that is measured in terms of behavioral output. This is especially true when it comes to memory localization and different types of memory. This paper seems to take this a step further and pinpoint exactly which neurons carry a specific memory. There would be significant and obvious clinical benefits to this type of research – the identification and removal of fear memory – especially in people with PTSD and perhaps depression and anxiety. However, although the removal of harmful fear memory sounds great, killing any part of the human brain would be dangerous and difficult to do successfully. It would take more research into the role of these neurons and the consequence of removing them before this method could be used therapeutically. Perhaps there is a way to, instead of killing them, alter their excitability or increase inhibition for a certain amount of time. 

These research papers also make me think about the complexity and convoluted nature of memory and how several neurons can be responsible for the trace of many memories at the same time. This is something to keep in mind when killing neurons in live patients – it may affect more than just the one memory. I would be interested in further research on if this phenomenon also occurs with other types of memories, such as happy and sad ones, in other areas of the brain. Perhaps altering the activation of these neurons affects mood and depressive behavior. Even if this is true in rats, I think it would be a long time until this research is clinically applicable in humans.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Buffington et al (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

This week's articles were about the role of the gut-brain axis in neurodevelopment and stress. Reber and colleagues used a heat-killed version of the bacteria, M. vaccae, as a type of vaccine and found that administration to mouse models resulted in decreased response to chronic stress, prevented colitis related to stress, and reduced measures of anxiety. Reber et al. also used the inactivated M. vaccae in a mouse model of IBD and found that the bacteria prevented stress-induce flare-ups of colitis, but that this could be reversed by removing T cells. Buffington and colleagues instead examined the role of gut microbiota in maternal high-fat diets (MHFD) in the neurodevelopment and social behaviors of their offspring. Buffington et al. found that housing MHFD rats with the offspring of regular diet (MRD) rats prevented social deficits in their offspring. They also found that this co-housing arrangement prevented an imbalance in the gut bacteria Reber and colleagues' findings w...

Gut-brain axis

This weeks papers Reber et al. 2016 and Buffington et al. 2016 present a super interesting look into the gut-brain axis. Regarding both of these papers, it was amazing to see how potent favorable or unfavorable gut microbiome compositions are in affecting neuronal signaling and overall behavior. Reber et al. shows how immunoregulatory immunization with specifically heat killed M.vaccae can serve as a protective factor against chronic subordinate stress induce colotis as well as behavioral symptoms due to chronic stress as such. Interestringly, this paper depleted regulatory T cell activity via the anti CD25 antibody in order to show that the antiinflammatory mechanism induced by m vaccae immunization is depented on the secondary regulatory mechanisms offered by Treg proliferation and signaling. But, when T reg signaling was removed, this did not seem to cause a significant change in behavior . Therefore, this begs the consideration of what othe rmechanisms may be at play in order ...

Gut-Brain Interactions: Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016) present quite fascinating approaches to studying the interactions or ‘axis’ between the rodent (and human) gut and brain. As the gut is a primary route for bringing things from the environment into our body, these two studies present very clear and convincing evidence for the relevance and translatable validity of their various hypotheses.   One of the most interesting conclusions to me from Buffington et al. was that co-housing three high-fat diet offspring with just one regular-diet offspring was enough to rescue their social behavior deficits and microbiome profiles. This is remarkable, and I would like to hear more about possible mechanisms for this transfer to actually occur. Although the article mentions that mice do eat each other’s feces to transfer microbiota, could there be a certain “threshold” or level of bacteria needed to observe this phenotype switch? That is, how many more high-fat diet mice could have been house...